Shocking and disappointing was the performance of Retired US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (1981 – 2006). She has been appearing on various media outlets, campaigning for passage of Nevada Question One* commonly known as the Missouri Plan*.

As a lawyer since 1952 and 25 years a US Supreme Court Justice, she was incredibly ill prepared to advocate for any position. Essentially she had three arguments for adoption.

1. It would remove the need for collecting campaign contributions.

Presumably money would be taken out of or reduced from the process, while being replaced with political patronage or with whatever is fashionable in Carson City at the time.

2. We would get better judges.

This depends on assumptions of faith. It may be worth noting the state of Missouri is reconsidering the “Missouri Plan”.

3. The United States founding fathers created a system of appointing Federal judges.

In the Twenty first century with advanced communications, I do not know that the founding fathers would disapprove of direct election of state justices and judges. The founding fathers may not have disapproved of electing Judges at the local level in 1787 either, as the founding fathers left local matters to local government and the people.

4. President Andrew Jackson crusaded for direct elections, that was a mistake. Of course he was a populist.

As an apparent elitist Sandra Day O'Connor obviously does not approve of President Andrew Jackson and the mere mention of his name in combination with him being a populist was reason enough to oppose direct elections.
President Andrew Jackson is generally defined as a populist, meaning, for the people, as he was an advocate of Democracy. For the elite, populism is a concept to be avoided, power should be held only by those same elite (themselves.)

One of the primary arguments used to favor passage, is that the majority of people do not know anything about the justices and judges. This is unfortunately true. However, easily remedied.

Presently there is the “Commission on Judicial Selection” which recommends for appointment all Supreme Court justices and District Court judges when midterm vacancies occur.
The “Commission on Judicial Selection” could and should be mandated to perform an evaluation of the candidates and make that evaluation readily available to the voting public, perhaps on the sample ballot. This would be done legislatively without requiring a constitutional amendment.

Political interference in the Missouri plan:
The Editors at the Wall Street Journal wrote on Dec. 22, 2007. "If the recent slugfests have proven anything, it's that Missouri's courts are every bit as hung up in politics as they are in other states. The difference is that in Missouri the process happens behind closed doors."

Some may prefer an assembly line style of justice, where theoretically all courts would render the same judgment. In that case a computer could be programmed, with a set of conditions to render a technically correct decision.

Yes, anything resembling democracy is often messy, however, there is nothing, including the Missouri plan, that is better.

Vote NO on Question 1

Editorial
© 2010 Barry Bouchard

Click here for Question 1

Click here for the Washoe County Bar Association’s Ratings

# # #
Return to Top

Question One is a Constitutional amendment to adopt a modified Missouri plan for appointing Supreme Court justices and District Court judges by the Governor for their initial terms from lists of candidates nominated by the Commission on Judicial Selection, with subsequent retention of those justices and judges after independent performance evaluations by the Commission on Judicial Performance and voter approval.

Click here for Question 1

# # #
Return to Top

Populism:
Is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes".

Elite (occasionally spelled élite) is taken originally from the Latin, eligere, "to elect". In sociology as in general usage, the elite is a hypothetical group of relatively small size, that is dominant within a large society, having a privileged status perceived as being envied by others of a lower line of order.
The elite at the top of the social strata almost invariably puts it in a position of leadership, whether it be expected or volunteered, and often subjects the holders of elite status to pressure to maintain that leadership position as part of status.
In elite theory all sufficiently large social groups will have some kind of elite group within them that actively participates in the group's political dynamics.

1. the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. (used with a plural verb) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
3. a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.

# # #
Return to Top

The Missouri Plan (originally the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan), also known as the merit plan, or some variation.
Missouri voters adopted the system by initiative petition in November 1940 after several very contentious judicial elections, which were heavily influenced by the political machine of Tom Pendergast.
 The Missouri Plan is a method to combine election and appointment of judges. Under the plan, candidates for judicial vacancies are first selected by commissions. They forward a short list of names to the governor who has sixty days to select one. If the governor does not select one of these names to fill the position within those sixty days, the committee will then make the selection. At the general election soonest after the completion of one year's service, the judge must stand in a "retention election". If a majority vote against retention, the judge is removed from office, and the process starts anew. If the majority vote in favor of retention, the judge is permitted to serve a full term.

# # #
Return to Top

Patronage is the support, encouragement, privilege, or financial aid that an organization or individual bestows to another. The term is often used to describe political patronage, which is the use of public resources to reward individuals for their electoral support. The term also refers to a type of corruption or favoritism in which a party in power rewards groups, families, ethnicities for their electoral support using illegal gifts or fraudulently-awarded appointments or government contracts.

# # #
Return to Top